Will Broadway ever bring back originally written shows? — Page 2

This poster has a long history with BWW and evidently knows what buttons to press to garner responses. The guy is sick, but if y'all want to indulge him, go ahead.

On the other hand, I guess the poor fella is doing no harm if he stirs up conversation amongst the non-insane.

---

I would at least like to see them choose better movies. Leap of Faith was an average film with little following. So, there was little to no built in audience to be brought in by the title.

The Jerk or Man With Two Brains would have been better Steve Martin films to adapt.

By the way-- anyone else remember his remake of Pennies From Heaven?

If you're adapting because you're actually adapting, you might pull a Green Grow the Lilacs/Oklahoma! or whatnot. But if you're adapting because you want to cash in on the source material's popularity, of course you're not going to change the title.

I don't think you can say "for every Leap of Faith, there is a Newsies." Sure, Newsies flopped at the box office when it was first released, but every article has pointed to the huge DVD sales and cult following it gained after that. Go to any college campus and you'll find students (probably theater students) watching the film, quoting the film, singing "Santa Fe," etc. It had plenty of fans in the population of 18-30 year old musical theater fans, which, coincidentally, is the most lucrative Broadway audience (see: Wicked, Rent).

Leap of Faith, on the other hand, flopped at the box office and has virtually no following.

All that said, it is frustrating and a tad hypocritical to hear people say in the same breath "I wish they'd stop adapting popular movies just to cash in!" followed by, "Leap of Faith was a stupid choice from the beginning because no one knows the movie." Do you want them to use popular movies or don't you?

---

Updated On: 1/11/13 at 08:29 AM

As has been said, original librettos as opposed to adaptations have long been the exception.

As to why BDWY turn to movies instead of plays and novels, there are a variety of reasons.

As Gaveston said, the popularity of film in relation to the theater and reading has exponentially grown.

There are likely fewer contemporary plays and novels which seem ripe for musicalization than there were when Ziegfeld read Show Boat and R&H read Tales from the South Pacific.

Also, movies are often adapted from plays and novels before their musicals are. There were films of Liliom and Pygmalian well before Carousel and My Fair Lady. Even today we tend to think of shows like Giant and Rebecca as cashing in on film popularity, but they were novels before they were films.

Still, it would be nice if adapters would look more often for non-movie source material, and, as has been said, if when they did look to the movies they'd sometimes make smarter choices as to which to adapt. It also goes without saying that they should - of course there are exceptions - do a better job of adapting them.

Updated On: 1/11/13 at 10:06 AM

Newintown, I didn't mean to say there aren't any but with the examples you give and other well known ones, isn't it very likely that the rights to them are in the hands of those looking to adapt for the screen not the stage?

Updated On: 1/11/13 at 10:21 AM

I have been fortunate to be part of two original musicals that are still awaiting producer interest. Not based on any book, tv show or movie. Easy to cast, catchy hum-able commercial music, drama and comedy in all the right places, fresh dialogue, and very low overhead. No one will touch them. Peter Filicia himself came to review both productions and said there was no reason why they should not be playing in NYC. Instead, what's on it's way? Flashdance.

I long for the day that Broadway comfort food ends and we can get back to the business of a heavier tipped scale of fresh and exciting new theater instead of the constant barrage of reheated microwave movie offerings that don't last very long.

---